Oh heck … Bloated public sector is damaging economy, warns Andrew Bailey.

Yes, it was funny PoliticsNerd😊. The point is that private sector companies which seek to make a profit generally pay directors and employees more than do not-for-profit companies and charities. Note I said ‘generally’, not always - we know that CEOs of some charities are well paid.

Another thought strikes me as I process the news of the first actual government job loss in my extended family in the U.S. Another relative holds the same position, but in a different branch of government, so they are on tenterhooks.

My hope is that we don’t get pushed down the path of 'disruption for disruption's sake.' Originally, this concept was used to signify the natural changes a new industry may bring - refusing to settle for the status quo, taking risks on unconventional ideas, and viewing friction as a significant opportunity. However, this perspective was developed by individuals who understood both business and people, not by the 'tech bro' who, while skilled in their own field, seem to lack an understanding of organisational psychology in some cases.

If you cannot moderate your views to accommodate other ideologies, you risk becoming an extremist, often labeled as 'hard' or 'far' right or left. Very few—indeed, very, very few—truly benefit from extremism, and it’s a fair guess that it won’t be Grannetters."

Sorry, I hope that was meant to be funny

Barleyfields

Basically, PoliticsNerd, because people running and working for companies like to be paid!

That made me laugh! They do get paid. Even charities pay their staff.

growstuff

Happilyretired123

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Totally and utterly agree with this, one of Reform UKs stated aims MaizieD (and *Terribull?). Regarding the stagnation in wages, I wonder whether a higher threshold before those on lower incomes become liable for tax would make any economic sense

This was suggested by Reform in their 'manifesto' last year. It is the only thing they proposed that I would be in agreement with. Based on the premise that business needs consumers to buy their products, so keeping the critical mass of consumers short of money makes no sense whatsoever when it comes to looking for growth.

It was one of the reasons I voted for them. It makes so much sense any way you look at it.

We will all be spending the money on private health insurance instead as Farage has stated he wants an insurance based system, no doubt provided by large American companies. Selling the NHS is the aim of Reform. Don’t see the Daily Telegraph, Mail, Express saying much about that. Imagine if Labour or Lib Dem’s had referenced that in Question Time last week!

So who will that benefit? Will it result in better health for everybody (or just the few who can afford enhanced premiums)? Why is it better than the NHS?

Well it won’t be those of us who can’t or won’t be able to afford private health insurance that’s for sure! And apart from the more comfortable hospital rooms, (having experienced both when I was working and my company paid for private health care) I would say the NHS better. We should be investing in the NHS not privatising it.

Ramblingrose22

How refreshing to read so many posts in this thread that I totally agree with.

Unfortunately some people in this country don't understand that public expenditure pays for their public services and that most of Thatcher's privatisations - whilst presented as a great gift to British taxpayers at the time - were a disaster, enriching incompetent CEOs and syphoning British utilities bill payers' money into the hands of foreign shareholders who care only about the size of their next dividend whilst we can't swim in our own seas and rivers because of lack of funding to prevent pollution by sewage spills.

I am not claiming that all public sector organisations are 100% efficient but you only have to watch episodes of "Who Do You Think You Are" to learn that in the last century and the one before that poor people lucky if they lived in a slum to avoid homelessness were carted off to workhouses before the introduction of the welfare state and the NHS where many died.

Do we prefer to have that kind of public squalor again so that we can have a few tax cuts?

Starmer & Co. are far from perfect but IMHO it would be even worse to be ruled by the previous lot or by the oligarchs as in the US.

Could not agree more! There are those on Gransnet who do seem to ignore the consequences of privatisation, tax cuts etc!
So many services provided by Local Authorities are contracted out eg children’s homes to “save money” are deficient, never mind efficient and their shareholders are doing very nicely thank you.

Happilyretired123

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Totally and utterly agree with this, one of Reform UKs stated aims MaizieD (and *Terribull?). Regarding the stagnation in wages, I wonder whether a higher threshold before those on lower incomes become liable for tax would make any economic sense

This was suggested by Reform in their 'manifesto' last year. It is the only thing they proposed that I would be in agreement with. Based on the premise that business needs consumers to buy their products, so keeping the critical mass of consumers short of money makes no sense whatsoever when it comes to looking for growth.

It was one of the reasons I voted for them. It makes so much sense any way you look at it.

We will all be spending the money on private health insurance instead as Farage has stated he wants an insurance based system, no doubt provided by large American companies. Selling the NHS is the aim of Reform. Don’t see the Daily Telegraph, Mail, Express saying much about that. Imagine if Labour or Lib Dem’s had referenced that in Question Time last week!

So who will that benefit? Will it result in better health for everybody (or just the few who can afford enhanced premiums)? Why is it better than the NHS?

I looked up the UK's 100 most valuable private companies (by sales) and was surprised how many of them are retailers (including one betting company). If private companies always produce "stuff", how does a retailer produce anything? Obviously they provide the means by which "producers of stuff" can sell things, but they're not actually producing anything themselves. They're providing a service. How is that any different from (for example) the NHS which keeps the people who make and provide "stuff" healthy? The NHS also uses equipment manufactured by private companies and pays employees, who then spend some of their money on "stuff" produced in the private sector.

A mixed economy is extremely complicated. The private and public sectors rely on each other in a symbiotic relationship. It's far too simplistic to claim that the private sector is productive and the public sector isn't.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Totally and utterly agree with this, one of Reform UKs stated aims MaizieD (and *Terribull?). Regarding the stagnation in wages, I wonder whether a higher threshold before those on lower incomes become liable for tax would make any economic sense

This was suggested by Reform in their 'manifesto' last year. It is the only thing they proposed that I would be in agreement with. Based on the premise that business needs consumers to buy their products, so keeping the critical mass of consumers short of money makes no sense whatsoever when it comes to looking for growth.

It was one of the reasons I voted for them. It makes so much sense any way you look at it.

We will all be spending the money on private health insurance instead as Farage has stated he wants an insurance based system, no doubt provided by large American companies. Selling the NHS is the aim of Reform. Don’t see the Daily Telegraph, Mail, Express saying much about that. Imagine if Labour or Lib Dem’s had referenced that in Question Time last week!

Wyllow3

Two hours ago it appears by a pundit in the Telegraph, straight to an O/P in GN.

Yes, lets appoint a crazy multi billionaire and sack key staff administering huge chunks go cuts without any planning done as to how, where, consequences, ensuring vital services continue.

Well said!

Barleyfields

Basically, PoliticsNerd, because people running and working for companies like to be paid!

Not-for-profit companies do pay their employees, but they don't make a profit for share holders.

Basically, PoliticsNerd, because people running and working for companies like to be paid!

I know of training companies whose entire income is from central and local government. Why don't we have more not-for-profit companies, I wonder?

growstuff

PoliticsNerd I'm not disputing your interpretation. Interesting that we both mentioned care homes. There are many other examples.

Any person working for a private company on a government contract is being paid with government money

This, and the examples others have given, show why you cannot divorce the public sector from the private sector when it comes to thinking about the UK economy.

Apparently, the productivity 'outputs' of private companies contracted to the government aren't always included in public sector productivity calculations because they are included in private sector 'productivity'.

PoliticsNerd I'm not disputing your interpretation. Interesting that we both mentioned care homes. There are many other examples.

PoliticsNerd

fancythat

In simple terms, a person in the public sector is paid money from the government.

A person working in the Private sector, is not.

That has set me questioning fancythat. You re right of course but who "pays" those externally employed but the company is paid by the government. This crosses many levels from small training companies where all their income comes from government, to outsourcing both high level and low paid jobs in say the NHS and companies like Price, Waterhouse, Cooper employing staff working in the civil services. There are also the places paid for in the Care Homes sector.

It's fairly easy to cut the budget of, say, a school - they can't argue - but these may be more difficult to cut, or are they?

It's not correct.

fancythat

In simple terms, a person in the public sector is paid money from the government.

A person working in the Private sector, is not.

That's not true. Plenty of private companies have contracts with the government or local authorities, which receive their money from taxation of one form or another. Care homes are a very visible example of that.

fancythat

In simple terms, a person in the public sector is paid money from the government.

A person working in the Private sector, is not.

That has set me questioning fancythat. You re right of course but who "pays" those externally employed but the company is paid by the government. This crosses many levels from small training companies where all their income comes from government, to outsourcing both high level and low paid jobs in say the NHS and companies like Price, Waterhouse, Cooper employing staff working in the civil services. There are also the places paid for in the Care Homes sector.

It's fairly easy to cut the budget of, say, a school - they can't argue - but these may be more difficult to cut, or are they?

If people are going to quote a newspaper headline as their title, they should really put it in quotation marks and provide attribution.

Members make decisions about which sources they use to get their information and not to identify a source used to drive a thread seems rather underhand and unethical.

I am careful where I choose to get my information and would like to be aware of the bias of the reporting before I read it. This is especially true when the headline is taken from what has now become a far-right newspaper and it's slipped surreptitiously into our reading.

a person working in the public sector, that should read.

In simple terms, a person in the public sector is paid money from the government.

A person working in the Private sector, is not.

Allsorts

However short we are of money it suddenly appears for some things. Listening to a radio programme yesterday and apparently we will be providing substantial funding to rebuild Gaza. How long would it take and last when rebuilt?

WE are not short of money, Allsorts.

We are able to create enough money to do whatever we want to do, within the constraints of resources available to purchase and proper taxation to control inflation.

We've been sold a myth of the national economy being just like a business or household economy ever since the 1980s and it just isn't true.

However, while politicians and commentators continue to believe the myth, and support economic theory and practice which serves the interests of the wealthy while marginalising everyone else, we're in trouble.

Not to mention the fact that it is politically inept to be sending money abroad (which I absolutely think we should be doing) without offering any relief to those who are struggling in the domestic economy, or making a push to do what, seemingly, the entire not rich UK population wants, which is to improve public services.

However short we are of money it suddenly appears for some things. Listening to a radio programme yesterday and apparently we will be providing substantial funding to rebuild Gaza. How long would it take and last when rebuilt?

Ilovecheese

growstuff asked:

"Does Mr Bailey think if public services were to be privatised they'd suddenly contribute to productivity?"

Maybe he does

After all, it has worked so well with the water companies.

Public sector is always going to be less productive because its product is only partly financial, which means that private sector has to make more to fill the gap. That’s not happening we are using borrowing to fill the gap, I doubt the economy is going to provide more short term, so public sector needs to cost less.

growstuff asked:

"Does Mr Bailey think if public services were to be privatised they'd suddenly contribute to productivity?"

Maybe he does

After all, it has worked so well with the water companies.